Excerpt:criminal - adulteration - rules 32 (b) and 32 (c) of prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955, sections 23 (1) (d) and 23 (2) of prevention of food adulteration act and article 134 (1) of constitution of india - whether rules intra-vires independently of amended section 23 (2) - rule 32 was general provision covering all those articles within its ambit of sweep - any attempt to curtail scope of rule 32 would defeat purpose which act intended to achieve - held, rules intra-vires of section 23 (2). - - the principles governing the question of virus of statutory rules under delegated power are fairly well settled and it is nto shown that in this case any such principle is violated......of food adulteration rules, 1955 (hereafter called the rules). these rules were held to be intra virus and it was observed that the words '-character, quality or quantity of the article' contained in seetion 23 (1) (d) of the p f.a. act (hereafter called the act) were wide and comprehensive enough to take within its fold the manufactarer, imorter, vendor or packer for the purpose of inspiring confidence of the public and the purchaser that they are getting the precise article desired. rale 32 was also held to be intended to be a general provision covering all those articles which come within its ambit of sweep, and any attemp to curtail or restrict its scope and effect by dwarfing the plain meaning of its words, would squeeze the life-blood of its statutory object and would be a.....

Judgment:

I.D. Dua, J.

(1) This application has been presented under Article 134 of the Constitution of India for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the supreme Court from the order of this Court dated 7th November, 1967 in Crj. Rev. No 371-B of 1965 by means of which the petitioner's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence, of a token fine of Re. 1 was upheld.

(2) The only question raised on revision related to the virus of Kale 32 (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereafter called the Rules). These rules were held to be intra virus and it was observed that the words '-character, quality or quantity of the article' contained in seetion 23 (1) (d) of the P F.A. Act (hereafter called the Act) were wide and comprehensive enough to take within its fold the manufactarer, imorter, vendor or packer for the purpose of inspiring confidence of the public and the purchaser that they are getting the precise article desired. Rale 32 was also held to be intended to be a general provision covering all those articles which come within its ambit of sweep, and any attemp to curtail or restrict its scope and effect by dwarfing the plain meaning of its words, would squeeze the life-blood of its statutory object and would be a step twoards defeing the laudable and beneficent pablie purpose which the Act is intend ed to achieve.

(3) The ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has pricnipally laid stress is that in the case in hand, section 23 of the Act was amended (by the Act 49 of 1964) by adding subjection (2) in the present form in 1964 and the amendment was enforced in 1966, but the rules had already been framed prior to this amendment. These rules were thus merely required to be laid before btoh Houses of Parliament as provided by the previous sub-section (2) of s-ction 23, without the Parliament being empowered to modify or annul those rules. The Parliament, accordiag to Shri Malik, ha.d no p3war at all to interfere with the rules, however disagreeable they might be in its opinion. The impugned rules, so runs the argument, mast b' held to be beyond the legislative competence of the rule making authority and the Court wrongly held them to be intra virus under the mistaken impression that the rules were made after the amendment affeeted by Act No. 49 of 1964. This, according to the submission, is a serious infirmity and for the case should, for this reasons, be certified to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. It is nto easy to sustain this submission.

(4) In the impugned order, the rules were held to be intra virus independently of the amended section 23. Reference to this sub-section was made only as an additional factor. It may be pointed out that at the bar reference at the time of arguments in the revision was made to the sub-rule as it exists now and nto to the unamended sub-rule. Bat be that as it may, the rules were considered to fall within the purview of s. 23 of the Act and I am nto persuaded to hold that this point raises a substantial question of law or principle. As observed by a Bench of five Jndges of the Supreme Court in Babu v. State of U.P the Constitution does nto contemplate a normal criminal appellate jurisdiction for the Supreme Court except in the two cases covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134 of the Constitution and the power of certification vested in the High Court under clause (e) has to be exercised with great circumspection and only in a case which is really fit for appeal. The principles Governing the question of virus of statutory rules under delegated power are fairly well settled and it is nto shown that in this case any such principle is violated.

(5) The toher point faintly raised is that there is no evidence to support the guilt of the accused. This argument was nto developed beyond bald assertion, with the result that it need nto detain me to deal with it exhaustively. Suffice it to say that on the record, obvously there is cogent evidence in support of the guilt. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.